The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

LOL.  Archimedes method for determining the circumference in relation to a circle's diameter is excellent.  His method starts out with barely 1% path length error  in the first pass, 0.07% in the third pass and 0.004% in the fifth pass that he worked out by hand 2000 years ago.  This is an easily verified historical and mathematical fact.    On the other hand  as is readily demonstrated with a string, some thumb tacks, a ruler and a soda can or any other cylinder by any fourth grader, your path length estimate comes out with an initial error of over 25%.  A string of length 4 * D wraps the cylinder base one full turn and more than another 90 degrees.  By your own admission your inept method does not improve from that very inaccurate estimate no matter how many iterations one takes.

You can check these numbers on a calculator of your choice.

Once again, you have taken the time element out of the equation, and this does not represent the real world!  Why did the yellow car win the race, even though it travelled a greater distance while having the same net fall as the green car?

Gravock

[MarkE]

Once again, you have taken the time element out of the equation, and this does not represent the real world!  Why did the yellow car win the race, even though it travelled a greater distance while having the same net fall as the green car?

Gravock

LOL, I didn't take out what was not there in the first place.  You cannot show that your hapless Manhattan method correctly estimates the path length of an arc, or even the length of a single line segment that is not parallel to one of the ordinate axes.  So much for your math.

Now, you are back to trying to change the subject again.  True to form, you have not established by equation or demonstration that either car won the race.  Given the dimensions, and taking certain simplifying assumptions we could solve the equations of motion and find the expected winner.  The car on the steeper track accelerates faster and has a higher average speed.  When the track horizontal run is long enough that average speed makes up for the increased path length.

[gravityblock]

LOL, I didn't take out what was not there in the first place.  You cannot show that your hapless Manhattan method correctly estimates the path length of an arc, or even the length of a single line segment that is not parallel to one of the ordinate axes.  So much for your math.

Now, you are back to trying to change the subject again.  True to form, you have not established by equation or demonstration that either car won the race.  Given the dimensions, and taking certain simplifying assumptions we could solve the equations of motion and find the expected winner.  The car on the steeper track accelerates faster and has a higher average speed.  When the track horizontal run is long enough that average speed makes up for the increased path length.

The video clearly demonstrates which car wins the race, and that is the yellow car which takes the longest path.  This is not changing the subject.  This has to do with acceleration and distance.

Gravock

[MarkE]

The video clearly demonstrates which car wins the race, and that is the yellow car which takes the longest path.  This is not changing the subject.  This has to do with acceleration and distance.

Gravock

LOL, the video?  You posted a static .png picture without any links.  It is still off the subject.  It is still well understood.  It still has nothing to do with your silly proposition that a Manhattan route yields a correct perimeter distance.

See if you can find a flaw in the following experiment that any fourth grader can perform. What does the fact that a string wrapped around the base of the cylinder only makes it about 79% around the square tell you?  What does the fact that a string wrapped tightly around the square makes it all the way around the circle and more than another 90 degrees tell you?

[TinselKoala]

If by "rectilinear mathematical equations" you mean his use of drawing "steps" and claiming (or at least appearing to) that this correctly measures the arc.   Then it's not evidence of anything if it doesn't do that and I think you know that it doesn't.

Are you saying that you don't see how this would come up with a different value for the pythagorean theorem?

I think it would be rather hilarious to take a walk in the city with gravock. When you come to that vacant lot and want to cut across the diagonal to get over to the next Starbuck's... he will be constrained to make little right-angled segments that are parallel to the streets, while you simply walk the diagonal and get your decaf nonfat Grande Latte halfway drunk by the time he walks in the door.